1. The lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of retrial shall be borne by the defendant;

purport, purport, ..

1. The following facts, including the confirmation of the judgment subject to a retrial, are apparent in records:

On June 3, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant for management expenses with the Daegu District Court. On February 9, 2015, the court of first instance rendered a judgment accepting the Plaintiff’s claim ( Daegu District Court Decision 2014Da38747), and the Defendant appealed against the judgment of the first instance.

On September 3, 2015, the appellate court rendered a judgment dismissing the Defendant’s appeal (Seoul District Court Decision 2015Na3899, hereinafter “instant judgment subject to review”), and the Defendant appealed against this and appealed, but the Supreme Court dismissed the Defendant’s appeal on December 23, 2015.

(Supreme Court Decision 2015Da56482). B.

After that, on December 28, 2015, the Defendant filed a suit for retrial with the Daegu District Court by asserting that there exists a ground for retrial under Article 451(1)3 of the Civil Procedure Act in the instant judgment subject to retrial, and the said court dismissed the Defendant’s petition for retrial on July 20, 2016.

(F) On November 10, 2016, the Supreme Court dismissed the Defendant’s appeal on November 10, 2016.

(Supreme Court Decision 2016Da37655). C.

On December 2, 2016, the Defendant again filed a suit for a retrial on the instant judgment subject to a retrial with the Daegu District Court.

2. Determination on the grounds for retrial

A. As to the assertion on the grounds for a retrial under Article 451(1)1 of the Civil Procedure Act, the Defendant asserted that the instant judgment subject to a retrial constitutes “when a judgment does not constitute a judgment court under the law,” since the Defendant applied for a witness before the pronouncement of the instant judgment subject to a retrial but failed to prove the truth and falsity as not adopted

However, Article 451 (1) 1 of the Civil Procedure Act provides that "when a judgment court is not constituted by law," the composition of the judgment court refers to cases where the composition of the judgment court does not follow the Court Organization Act and the Civil Procedure Act, and whether to adopt a witness application is irrelevant to the composition of the judgment court